My name is ______ and I'm writing a short article about
your last book, Human Devolution,that will very likely be published
in Gea magazine (it covers topics sort of like National
Geographic but not so orthodox). I come from Slovenia and as
you know, you have lectured
there. I hope you will also come back to lecture about the Human
Devolution. Will you?
I have bought and also read Forbidden Archeology. I have
a very high opinion of your work
and want to express my respect and deepest sympathy. Just keep going
on. If only there
would be more researchers like you. I think your work is so valuable
because it offers a rare
and scientific argumented body of data aimed at those who expect scientific
proofs for
spiritual claims.

Still, I have just one problem in your devolution concept, that I don't
understand. First, I must
tell you about my previous studies. My personal spiritual view has
been shaped by the works
of [Y]ogananda, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Ramacharaka and Sri Aurobindo.
At the
beginning of my readings I remember I also read the book of your teacher,
His Divine Grace
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. I also have the booklet on
reincarnation from
Theosophian society.

Now, I believe (based on the knowledge I gathered) that saints, yogis...can
attain knowledge
not by scientific means but directly from the higher source during meditation...so
they can in
fact be regarded as authorities (of course, one should see for himself
by his own experiences).
Ultimately, science, we can hope, will attain knowledge that saints already
know. If saints have
sort of a direct access to wisdom and true nature of reality, then their
accounts should be more
or less the same, in harmony with each other.

Now, of course, there can be differences when you translate the transcendental
experiences into
writing or speech. These result from differences in culture, place,
time and also level of samadhi
or some other similar experience, I imagine.

But there is one big difference between your school and these other yogis
(at least as far as I can
remember - correct me if I am wrong). I'm talking about reincarnation
process. Your opinion is
that reincarnation is bidirectional. A soul that is currently enclosed
in a human body can in fact
devolve to lower bodies (animal, plant, fungi, mineral) as a result of
its desires.

This goes in contrast with the view held by others I have mentioned, who
say that reincarnation is
progressive. Once you achieve human form, there is nothing that
can bring you to the state of
lower life forms. Reincarnation is therefore a tool for a spiritual
evolution of every soul, who after
many reincarnations gets re-united with the creator from which everything
emanated.

I would understand that souls would want to live out desires in human
form (our body enables a
sense of self), but why would any soul want to be enclosed in plant [or]
fungi form? Or in the form
of a single cell life form?

I agree that devolution concept is very logical, and definitely we devolved
at the beginning of this
process. Also, the bodies were probably designed at the beginning
of this cycle as the
archeological data suggest. But what if the first human bodies were
occupied by souls who, at
previous cycle, have achieved appropriate level of consciousness? What
if (once you for the
first time devolve down to material universe) you must always start as
a single cell organism and
then progress to human form and further? Well, this may seem to
you as some evolutionary thinking
projected onto devolution concept, but in reality I would just like to
be more sure which worldview is
more closer to the truth. It is not a matter of believing to this
or that school. It's a matter of why is
devolution concept of reincarnation different from the view expressed,
for example, by Sri Aurobindo?
Isn't he one of the most reliable sources? He is one of the most
advanced yogis ever to inhabit our
planet (at least as far as I understood his story). Also, the theosophians
refute bidirectional
reincarnation, saying that this concept is a classic mistake of some Oriental
religions who teach that
such animal incarnation is punishment for certain sins. (Reincarnation,
Wright, 1975). Once a man,
always a man, say the theosophians. Well, I agree it is our free
will that would cause that kind of
incarnation, but still, how can you respond to this view?

Wouldn't you agree that if only human body enables salvation (at least
on this planet), that all souls
enclosed in lower bodies must spiritually evolve and use different ever-more
complex bodies along
the way? Is not this the scenario we (human souls) all went through?
I think bidirectional reincarnation
is a lot more unpleasant concept - you can never be sure not to be again
driven by desires to lower
states of being....Maybe that's why I can't just yet put it in the structure
of my worldview.

I really would appreciate if you can answer my questions or point me to
some article where this is
presented in detail. I would really like to shed a light on this
issue before I write my review - it is a big
dilemma for me. Hope to receive an answer.

Yours sincerely

(big sorry for mistakes - English is not my native language)

Michael Cremo responds:

If my book Human Devolution is published in Slovenia, then I would
be happy to come
there and lecture about it. A friend of mine there is investigating
the possibilities, but until
now I have heard nothing definite about it.

About the reincarnation question, I get my information about that from
the ancient Sanskrit
writings of India. For example, in the Shrimad Bhagavatam
we find the story of King Bharata,
who became too much attracted to a deer, and entered the body of a deer
in his next life. Also,
in the Bhagavad Gita, it is said,

adho gacchanti tamasah

those in the mode of ignorance go down in their next life

There is another text in the Bhagavatam (sometimes called the Bhagavata
Purana) that
makes this quite explicit:

SYNONYMSsattva-sangat—by association with the mode of goodness; rsin—to the
sages; devan—to the demigods;
rajasa—by the mode of passion; asura—to the demons; manusan—and to human
beings; tamasa—by
the mode of ignorance; bhuta—to the ghostly spirits; tiryaktvam—or the
animal kingdom; bhramitah—
made to wander; yati—he goes; karmabhih—because of his fruitive activities.TRANSLATION
Made to wander because of his fruitive work, the conditioned soul, by
contact with the mode of
goodness, takes birth among the sages or demigods. By contact with
the mode of passion he
becomes a demon or human being, and by association with the mode of ignorance
he take birth
as a ghost or in the animal kingdom. [Srimad Bhagavatam 11.22.52]

In the Vedic system of epistemology, one should support
one's statements by statements from
the various Vedic literatures, which include the four Vedas, the Upanishads,
the Puranas, and others.
One's own mind and senses are imperfect, and therefore one's speculations
might also be imperfect.
But the Vedic literatures are said to be apaurusheya, which means they
are not written by ordinary
people, but come from the Parambrahman, the supreme conscious being, and
are therefore beyond
the limits of ordinary knowledge, which can be imperfect.

Now, if one does go down from the human form of life into the plant or
animal forms of life, it is true that
one makes gradual progress upward until one again comes to the human form
of life. But in the human
form of life, one must accept the reactions of one's activities. And
if the activities warrant, one may be
placed again in the plant or animal forms of life.

It is not that the soul necessarily desires to receive the body of a plant
or an animal, but that it deserves
to receive the body of a plant or an animal, and this is something that
is determined by higher
intelligences in the universe who analyze one's attraction to particular
modes of nature.

As for one's first birth, my understanding is that the first birth is
as a human or demigod, and if one
misuses that position and becomes attracted to the lower modes of nature,
then one goes down into
other forms of life. It would be hard to see why one would be put
into the lowest forms of life right at
the start, which involves a lot of suffering, for no good reason.

Anyways, although I do have some disagreements with some Theosophists,
we have in general good
relations. Earlier this year, I lectured on Human Devolution
at the Theosophical Society in
Edinburgh, Scotland, and other theosophical societies have also invited
me. I suppose what we
have in common is more important than our differences.

If you have more questions, let me know. Also, if you could send
me a copy of your article if and
when it is published, I would be grateful.